They were too busy arguing and then it was too late
Poll: Climate change now more divisive than abortion, gun control
A recent poll has discovered that – in one US state, at least – climate change is now a more divisive issue than even the long-bubbling "pro-choice/pro-life" and gun-control dust-ups. The poll, conducted in January and February of this year by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute and released last week, found …
-
Tuesday 27th May 2014 21:06 GMT Dodgy Geezer
Yet another poll from the warmists
We have already been told that, accordingly to impeccably peer reviewed scientific studies, if you don't believe in catastrophic AGW you are clinically insane, a wife-beater, a paedophile and personally responsible for all the deaths in the Third World since 1960.
From this I surmise that the temperatures are still not going up like they said they would....
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 04:39 GMT Fluffy Bunny
Re: Yet another poll from the warmists
"I've got my eyes shut and a blindfold on, so obviously you can't be showing me any evidence."
It's more that they thought they had suppressed the contrary evidence better. I once had an argument with a green, who was incensed at the thought that I could have found any evidence against CAGW.
Regarding the other comment about all the peer-reviewed CAGW promoting papers...if I go from person to person until I've found somebody that agrees with me, what have I proven? There is no value in peer review if you only allow "the right sort of climate scientist" to work in the field. The entire scientific process has become corrupted by the threats and intimidation against any scientist that doesn't promote the cause.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 27th May 2014 22:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @the AC who calls someone else a fool
@silent_count: May I quote The Good Book, Proverbs 26:4, King James Version: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Or as Mark Twain was never proven to have said, "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
While I understand your point, silent_count, and appreciate your argument, there have been reams and reams of "insightful argument" and "evidence" published by legitimate, dedicated, thoughtful, and objective scientists proving AGW to near-certainty. Further argument in this forum is of no value – the question has been decided in the affirmative: human activity is exacerbating global warming, and global warming is causing climate change. Case closed.
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 08:06 GMT 's water music
Re: @the AC who calls someone else a fool
Which will convince more people about the validity of your position; posting insults as an anonymous coward, or posting an insightful argument and links to evidence which supports your argument?
I'm pretty sure it will be the former, although maybe not if you mean ...change the minds of... when you write ...convince....
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 14:29 GMT Tom 13
Re: insightful argument and links to evidence which supports your argument?
Well that's the rub isn't it. We skeptics hold that the political aspects have so overwhelmed the studies that even the evidence has been corrupted, which makes an insightful argument citing it impossible. There's only one way to get the discussion back on track, and the warmists refuse to do it:
Publish the raw data, the correction equations and methodology, and all the parameters for the models in an open source style release so anyone can examine it from the ground up.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th May 2014 20:22 GMT john-from-arizona
Re: Yet another poll from the warmists
The beauty of science is that true science is a self correcting matter. When addition studies are made science corrects itself. Yet this is also why one would see many "unsure"s in a poll of that nature. Vulcanism has altered weather as well as continental drift. Peer reviewed science declares "that the evidence at this point" indicates..... Yet a person who hugs desperately on to a certain framework cannot call themselves "science-guided". This is due to the complexities within research.
Once many decades ago a researcher weighed a man before and after death. There existed a discrepancy of approximately minus 21 grams, as the experiment continued, the researcher thought this may be the "soul" of individuals. This being a very emotionally charged issue the experiment was augmented & furthered by many, with many more samplings. It was concluded this was a natural phenomenon of oxygen leaving the tissues & depending on the time elapsed may have been varied as decomposition set in; weighing less & at times more, etc.
Therefore science allows for addition input & declares itself neutral in MANY areas. This is the beauty of research. Pure research must declare itself neutral to the point of the knowledge that exists up till the point of the question at hand. No one knows what the future will bring & those that are sure they do, are not practicing science but faith. There is NOTHING wrong with faith but it is not science.
-
-
-
Tuesday 27th May 2014 23:35 GMT Don Jefe
Re: No science
I'm not sure you know what science looks like. Matter of fact, I'm absofuckingloutely certain you don't. There is never a 'smoking gun' in science. Find a scientist that will tell you (x) is 'this way' and that's absolute and I'll show you a PR person disguised as a scientist.
Science is supposed to be fluid and dynamic. Science is nothing more than a formalized method of observing the world and until the world no longer exists it will be in a constant state of flux therefore any and all observations of the world will also be in flux. Absolutely nothing is universal, it just kind of seems that way sometimes because we typically don't hang around long enough to notice the changes.
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 00:18 GMT phil dude
Re: No science
Precisely. Scientists are (optimally) open to new evidence and adopt the theories to account for this new data.
This is why the theory of evolution is so massively misunderstood (I might mischievously suggest, on purpose) by certain religious groups. Religion is based on human contrived dogma, no more data collection is possible. Biology is based on collecting data on the species in the natural world. It takes a particularly sort of selective observation to think the world is anything other than changing constantly.
Of course, an important tool is feedback from systems. Here in is the problem with complex problems such a climate.
A weather forecast you get feedback in 4 hours if it is not right. A climate model, 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?
Either way, it would help if the scientific process was transparent, and less political. There are too many vested interests in certain political outcomes, to not be very cynical about the process of the "truth" in certain fields.
Of course the same could be asked of government policy in general.
P.
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 01:50 GMT Grikath
Re: No science
Not exactly... Science does need to provide a smoking gun to prove the "A" in AGW.
The "Anthropogenic" bit in the theory is crucial to just about everything. It states that human behaviour is a major, if not near-exclusive contributor to the current change in climate, and to make that stick there needs to be positive proof that this is indeed the case, and to which extent exactly.
So far, climate science has simply failed to do this to any degree of scientific standard. The "Anthropogenic factor" has not been quantified enough to tell whether it has an accelerating or even decelerating effect on the global warming that is happening anyway because we're still in the full swing of an interglacial period, and have just emerged from a period of extremely low global temperatures ( affectionately known as the "little ice age") .
So yes, until the "A" is properly quantified , AGW is a political tool and not Science
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 02:51 GMT dan1980
Re: No science
@Grikath
One thing I feel is important to point out is that something being a political tool does not, ipso facto, preclude it from being good science.
It's an argument that gets pulled out a lot and even from other posters in this very thread.
That something is beneficial for a group you distrust may be cause to take a closer look but, once you do take a closer look, however, you must divest yourself of all considerations of who is benefiting and to what ends things may be put.
That is science, or at least good science.
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 09:35 GMT Mephistro
Re: No science
"Not exactly... Science does need to provide a smoking gun to prove the "A" in AGW."
Errmmmm... Quite often, crimes are solved based in 'fractional evidence', as long as there's lots of it and doesn't contradict other available data. Smoking guns aren't always the norm in real life police investigations.
Of course, in an 'ideal justice system', a sentence based on this kind of evidence should be continuously reviewed, new data should be researched and added to -or subtracted from- the body of evidence, and the sentencing changed.
Luckily for us, that's precisely the way Science works. Otherwise we'd be teaching the phlogiston theory and going around in rickshaws pulled by hungry peasants (Caution: swap peasant every ten kilometres). So for the time being we must consider AGW as 'fact' unless contrary evidence surfaces.
-
-
-
Tuesday 27th May 2014 21:25 GMT DropBear
That's a particularly dodgy question, as phrased there. Of course I do believe in "scientists" as a source of information about environmental issues (or about anything else) - but "which particular scientists" is a different issue altogether, meaning possibly not the ones you're thinking of. And not being a climatologist (or indeed a scientist at all) myself, answering that second question with any confidence is unfortunately much harder than one might expect...
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 04:52 GMT Fluffy Bunny
"a source of information about environmental issues..."
A more important point, though. Even if we accept the claims about CAGW, irrespective of the lack of warming for 15 years - oh and by the way, I recently saw a graph presented, with a completely straight face, that claimed the warming had been continuing for the whole 15 years. The level of outright fraud in "climate science" is immense.
Back to my point, though. Even if CAGW were real, do you actually let the scientist dictate government policy? No, of course not.
Did I mention the claims in Australia that CAGW would make humans extinct? I really can't get over the immense levels of scientific fraud.
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 11:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
"irrespective of the lack of warming for 15 years "
Warming has been continuing - at a slower rate when measured as average surface temperature - but it certainly has not stopped. You are very poorly informed with long out of date information if you think otherwise.
This should help:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 11:05 GMT despun
good point
Yes. The only climate scientist who I knew personally was a shit hot, top of the range, mathematical and computational physist. The type of bloke who when he says he's solved a set of coupled non-linear differential equations, you can believe has. Now very senior in the climate science field in the US. So, I've looked up some of his papers, and they're not "on message".
As for the bulk of those calling themselves "climate scientists". Look at their c.v. s.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 00:54 GMT Tim99
Re: Ergo sum
Nice sound-bite Diogenes, unfortunately it may not be true. As you post under the name of a seeker of truths, perhaps a look at published work may be helpful. Bob Altemeyer could be a good place to start - Link rationalwiki.org. A link to his book about Right-wing authoritarianism is on his University of Manitoba web page here.
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 03:09 GMT dan1980
Re: Ergo sum
@Diogenes, Paul and Tim
I'll make it simpler for you all - people believe what they are told when it accords with their pre-existing beliefs, reinforces their understanding of the world, justifies their prejudices, makes them feel safe or superior, absolves them of blame or responsibility, or at a baser level, when it provides some material benefit to them.
Science is the way out of that quagmire - it's a method for testing beliefs.
As you observe and measure and experiment and collaborate and predict and publish and read and listen and discuss and test and re-test it all, some beliefs are confirmed, others modified to better fit observation, and still others are discarded.
That is the very point of science - to test what we think against reality in as objective a manner as possible.
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 01:09 GMT Micky Fite
That climate change has happened and is happening? Then yes. Oh wait, you mean man-made climate change? Then no. That's why they trot out studies that show the ice is melting in the studied area and ignore the fact that total levels are increasing. So yes, sea ice is melting at high rates in that area and if it continues at that rate it will all disappear in X years.
By that same logic I can predict that, given the rate the temperatures have been rising here lately, that we will all be dead by July. I mean six weeks ago it was 70F and now we are seeing spikes into the 90's!!!!
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 03:28 GMT dan1980
@Micky Fite
I get that you're being facetious in your closing paragraph (at least I hope you are) but if that line of thinking reflects what you think is being measured and how conclusions are being drawn then you have either:
- Misunderstood the science, or
- Understood but deliberately misrepresented it.
The ice measurements you are talking about are not a comparison between one month and the next but between comparable recurring periods.
Your argument is a classic straw-man, though not a very convincing one. You put forward a ridiculous situation - analysing temperatures 6 weeks apart to make long-term predictions - and equate that to how scientists are measuring the rates of ice melting.
You can't honestly believe that's what is happening, right? You do know it's a bit more involved and rigorous, don't you?
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 06:06 GMT dan1980
@Fluffy Bunny
Do you?
It's all so simple - he didn't even need to talk about the fundamental difference between land ice and sea ice or the different factors affecting the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets,
People like Mickey Fite hear a sound-bite ("overall ice coverage is increasing") and delve no deeper because it reinforces what they already believe or want to believe. He doesn't care that teams of scientists have spent grueling seasons on the ice and countless collective hours measuring and processing to try and come up with a complete picture.
The simple causalities are what most people demand - the planet is warming so ice is melting, the planet is cooling so ice is expanding, the planet is steady so the ice is stable.
Unfortunately it's just not that simple as the effects of all of this are complicated.
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 14:41 GMT Tom 13
@ dan1980
No, his example is spot on.
The only reason you think it's a strawman argument is that you've been through enough summer and winter cycles to KNOW that the temperature curve isn't linear. If you were to compare actual climate data with the time period Micky in Micky's example, we'd be maybe 3 minutes into the 6 weeks. And it doesn't matter how rigorously you reviewed that 3 minutes worth of data, it is worthless without at least one summer cycle.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 15:34 GMT brainbone
Re: "No, no, no. The CAGW people bully and intimidate"
Just like the "Evolution through natural selection people" bully and intimidate anybody that believes the earth is 6000 years old?
There is FAR more bullying and intimidation coming from both the intelligent design crowd and AGW deniers than any scientists. Explaining how any why your belief is wrong is not "bullying", no matter how gutted you feel afterwards.
-
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 09:10 GMT codejunky
@ aidanstevens
"If you look at climate change from a purely scientific viewpoint the consensus is undeniable."
Actually if you look from a scientific point of view we still dont know. We dont know how climate works and our educated guesses have the predicting accuracy of mystic meg and a similar vagueness. The absolute facts we can all be absolutely 100% certain of is there have been some severe lies told under the guise of science to put man made climate change co2 theory into the spotlight. There are 2 groups- the scientific (still looking/waiting for credible answers) and the denier of science (basically the believers and the absolute non-believers).
The only people certain and loving the XFactor style consensus are the deniers of science who are just as nutty as people who think nothing changes even naturally. I feel sorry for actual scientists looking for the truth because the truth will not be believed regardless of the answer. All because of morons shouting 'consensus' and drawing hockey stick graphs without any science to back it up. We have passed however many deadlines to prevent the end of the world yet another pops up quickly after the last one. And yet odd behaviour in the climate temperature (such as not accelerating as per 600 predictions all varying our doom) is dismissed as 'oh, it must be hiding somewhere'. Yeah very scientific.
Sorry but I prefer my science with a pinch of science not bull
-
Wednesday 28th May 2014 22:44 GMT Mephistro
(@ codejunky) (Re: @ aidanstevens)
aidanstevens wrote: "If you look at climate change from a purely scientific viewpoint the consensus is undeniable."
codejunky answered: "Actually if you look from a scientific point of view we still dont know"
Perhaps you should ponder carefully the meaning of 'scientific consensus'. What aidanstevens wrote means that a majority of scientists working in climate related areas believe AGW exists, and that's quite undeniable. You read that as if the conclusions that the actual consensus believe true are undeniable.
'oh, it must be hiding somewhere'
FYI we know pretty damn well where it's hiding. In the Oceans, whose temperatures have risen very noticeably in the last decade or so, and whose acidity (read CO2) has been also rising over the same period. And no, they don't know exactly when or how these heat sinks and carbon sinks will fail, but most of the bets are on it being quite catastrophic.
And if you think that a (more or less) stable system can withstand and survive a continuously growing amount of pressure in one direction, you should think again.
Seriously, I can understand people finding it difficult to believe that we, tiny puny human beings can affect climate, but that fact was proved back in the seventies, when climate scientists discovered a precipitation/temperature cycle affecting the USA , a cycle whose length didn't correspond to any known natural cycle. Namely, a weekly cycle.
-
Thursday 29th May 2014 08:50 GMT codejunky
Re: (@ codejunky) (@ aidanstevens)
@ Mephistro
"Perhaps you should ponder carefully the meaning of 'scientific consensus'. What aidanstevens wrote means that a majority of scientists working in climate related areas believe AGW exists, and that's quite undeniable."
From a scientific point of view a consensus of a select few people who sing the right tune is not scientific. The blurring of meaning, the fudging of figures and the outright lies is not scientific. Scientifically we are certain that we dont know how the climate works to a reliable degree. As demonstrated by the lack of reliability in predictions from the 'scientists' who have a consensus.
"FYI we know pretty damn well where it's hiding. In the Oceans, whose temperatures have risen very noticeably in the last decade or so, and whose acidity (read CO2) has been also rising over the same period. And no, they don't know exactly when or how these heat sinks and carbon sinks will fail, but most of the bets are on it being quite catastrophic."
Yes that is the revised history that they knew all along where it was hiding. Obviously after the surprise that the predictions didnt match reality. And the doomsayers are betting on quite catastrophic so maybe they should go up the hill and wait for the UFO to pick them up because its the end of the world. And like the rest of the doomsayers we will watch them walk back down that hill in shame. I will rely on science thank you.
"And if you think that a (more or less) stable system can withstand and survive a continuously growing amount of pressure in one direction, you should think again."
What stable system? How many extinctions have their been? How many catastrophic events that would wipe us out? A stable system or some natural equilibrium is a wet dream of those fearing change. It also isnt there.
"Seriously, I can understand people finding it difficult to believe that we, tiny puny human beings can affect climate, but that fact was proved back in the seventies, when climate scientists discovered a precipitation/temperature cycle affecting the USA , a cycle whose length didn't correspond to any known natural cycle. Namely, a weekly cycle."
I dont find it difficult to believe humans can affect climate. Application of enough pressure and we can affect most things. But the absolutely brain dead religion which has built up for the end of the world can go with the other nutters with a sandwich board and get out of my way. I will accept science and I am waiting for the scientific understanding to be formed. All the politicians and morons can stuff their x days to save the world because they are talking absolute rubbish. It is scientifically proven.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 27th May 2014 21:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Then you get people who want to "divest" from fossil fuels companies
Yes the school I went to for 1 year (it was in New Hampshire even) in the 3rd form has a bunch of people who want to "divest" from fossil fuel companies.
My comment: If you desire this, set an example. Don't use fossil fuels in your life. Of course this means that you can't use petrol fueled automobiles, you can't heat your house, and can't use about 2/3s of your electricity. Other than that, there are things like the food we eat that necessitates use of fossil fuels, and the list goes on.
Simply put it is quite difficult to live without fossil fuels.
p.s. I don't contribute to said school. The didn't invite me back, so I reciprocate in kind.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
